"Brown and Nobles calculate that the approximate area needed to produce ethanol with corn to fuel all U.S. transportation needs is around 820,000 square miles, an area almost the size of the entire Midwest. They hypothesize they could produce an equal amount of ethanol using an area half that size with the cyanobacteria based on current levels of productivity in the lab, but they caution that there is a lot of work ahead before cyanobacteria can provide such fuel in the field. Work with laboratory scale photobioreactors has shown the potential for a 17-fold increase in productivity. If this can be achieved in the field and on a large scale, only 3.5 percent of the area growing corn could be used for cyanobacterial biofuels."
By my math 3.5% of 820,000 is 28,700 sqaure miles. Which by most metrics is a lot of land, but not nearly what the karma whore was suggesting.
No it doesn't. For one that was a rumor, it's not like in 2006 Apple released a pressed release stating that instead of using P.A. Semi chips in their complete line they were going to use Intel.
Hey, don't get me wrong... nothing would please me more than during some Apple presentation that guy got on stage, introduced himself and declared that they (P.A. Semi & Apple) had just out ARM'd Intel. I'd be fucking amazed and delighted.
Back when DEC was selling Alphas we had a bunch heating the lab. Nice boxes, a lot faster for our app than Wintel but that was then and this is now.
This chip company specialises in low power chips for small devices, not desktop chips.
I don't think that is quite right. If you go to their website and have a look at the documents for their reference design, it's all about high performance embedded applications. I'd expect to see these in comms applications... or purpose built high speed data handling. But not phones or PDAs or things like that.
I'm very curious where Apple is going with this. P.A. Semi so far has only put information about one design up on their website and it's been there at least since the rumor that Apple was going to buy them (shortly before they went to Intel). That chip, being somewhere between Atom & Core2 I suppose, doesn't seem to me to good fit to any of Apple's existing products.
The idea that hidden up their sleeves P.A. Semi has an ultra efficient SOC design for a next generation iPhone/iPod/Tablet is sort of interesting but I'd be really surprised if a dark horse came out nowhere and outdid the various upcoming Intel offerings or even the existing ARM SOC designs. Intel is very, very proud of their Low Voltage and Ultra Low Voltage parts but surely that added cost doesn't make it worth Apple's while to go out a buy a company.
The idea that P.A. Semi has a next generation chip suitable workstation or home computer applications for me is even more unlikely. I think it would have to some chip to really motivate Apple to go away from Intel for their Mac lines.
It's interesting that you use a man who supports intelligent design as an example of a high profile climate scientist who disagrees with the scientific consensus that climate change is indeed anthropogenic. I have found a strong correlation myself and that is something I find extremely interesting.
Your assertion that 'no one disagrees that climate change is happening' is incorrect, there are a variety of scientists who either deny global change flatly or maintain that it has ceased.
Your assertion that many scientists and meteorologists disagree is deceptive. Scientists who deny the existence of climate change or who deny an anthropogenic nature to climate change are a tiny fraction of the scientific community... and a smaller fraction still of climatologists.
Your assertion that Al Gore is in this simply for his personal gain is both factually incorrect and a straw man argument... which is, on it's face, pretty lame.
Your assertion that that gasses that we release have "no actual measurable affect on the planet" is not an undisputed fact and is contrary to the scientific consensus.
Finally I question your summarization that it's media manipulation which generates the uproar and posit that it is manipulation of the media that generates it. As I have previously stated saying that scientific community is split on this topic when it is a tiny fraction of scientists who disagree is disingenuous. For any issue at all it possible to find at least one or two men who will support your claims. If you have deep pockets and flexible mores it is possible to find still more.
To simply cast about until you find someone who has credentials who supports your preconceptions isn't particularly honest and is practically the defining characteristic of those who deny evolution and / or climate change... and come to think of it, the holocaust.
I think it is also important to recognize that professional deniers exploit and conflate the public's ignorance of the details of science and minor scientific disagreements in order to invent a substantive disagreement where there is little to none. Then reporters report "not all scientists agree" and the public walks away with the idea that there is some sort of real 50/50 split between serious scientists doing serious research as to the nature of whatever is being discussed. The fact of the matter is that no scientist seriously expects to achieve 100% consensus, nor is there is a 50/50 split between serious scientists doing serious research on either issue. There are virtually no evolutionary biologists saying in order to explain this or that an intelligent designer is required. And there are few climate scientists saying that it is extremely unlikely that climate change is not happening or that is completely decoupled from human activity.
So what's the best thing to do when faced with reporters uncritically reporting distorted facts from groups with hidden agendas or who present distorted data in an effort to present a "balanced" story? Translating real science into something easily consumed by average citizen is extraordinarily difficult to do and most scientists can't. So even if you were able to secure an interview with the same reporter it unlikely you could produce material to the same level that the professional propagandists produce... and the reporter damn sure isn't going to do it for you.
As a scientist I appreciate the difficulty and I get frustrated when I see reporters parrot bad science... it makes me glad sensor chemistry isn't exactly a hot bed of international debate.
This is something I noticed about a year ago and find fascinating. I canâ(TM)t decide if this is some sort of outright rejection of science or a more selective phenomena where they reject certain parts of science where it interferes with their world view.
I have spent the majority of my adult life in the study and practice of Buddhism. While I do recognize the differences in the various schools of Buddhism; none of them are different in substantive ways. In the context of this discussion I find your comment suspicious. It is suggestive that because Tibetans are do not practice some sort of imaginary fundamentalist Buddhism I should withdraw my support of Tibetans and His Holiness the Dali Lama or perhaps that we should not be outraged at the goings on in Tibet. I don't find either of these two concepts ethically or morally tenable.
So I have to ask: What of it? Why do you care? Why should I care?
Man I can't believe how much I screwed that post up. Perhaps I should try again.
Yes the West does act hypocritically but I don't think it is relevant.
1: there are *not* many Western politicians who criticize China strongly and effectively, though there are some that whine. 2: the economy of the West (the US in particular) is too indebted to China for the west to really have any power over decisions the Chinese government make 3: Just because the western powers are hypocritical doesn't mean it's OK for everyone to join in. Conversely just because China and North Korea exist does not make it OK for the US and the UK to become police states.
I would like add one more thing:
I did not vote for anyone who has been in the office of US president for the last 7.5 years. I don't support torture. I don't support Gitmo. I don't support the use of US State Department assets to secure unethical deals between US based multinational corporations & corrupt officials in developing nations. I don't support the sale of arms to any nation outside of NATO (or the sale or use of land mines & cluster bombs). I don't support the wide scale deployment of US troops in the middle east.
I am a Buddhist and I do care about the plight of the Tibetans. I may not get with full on Tibetan monastic thing, with all the colorful outfits, but I have met His Holiness the Dali Lama and I do own, and have read all his books. He's a remarkably straight forward man and pretty much everything I've heard him say was compassionate and worth following... whatever tradition you follow,if you follow one at all...
So when I read the various Chinese reactions on the internet about the uprising in Tibet, the sporadic violence, and the potential involvement of His Holiness the Dali Lama, I have to admit they take on this separation from reality. I have a hard time believing it is just some Chinese guy, at an internet expressing his opinion. But rather I think it must be people in the Chinese government's employ... surely the agitprop in China is not so effective. But then I remember the posts I have read from US, UK, and Australian nationals... supporting any action undertaken by their respective governments: Rejection of Habeas Corpus, Wholesale Warrant-less surveillance, invasion, occupation, murder, torture and I suppose it isn't unlikely at all that these posts are made by Chinese Nationals on their own volition and in the honest opinion... and that's pretty depressing.
I do speak out against these things and I do think I can do so in a minimally hypocritical way and I do think that the success of the Tibetan People does not require or demand the failure of the Chinese People. And I have gotten some pretty vitriolic responses. These have been fairly challenging because in my world view they are so obviously non factual and designed to be insulting and degrading. However as in a tiny, tiny way I am trying support His Holiness and the Tibetan people I think the response I most dearly wish to give "Fuck you, you Fucking Fucker" is particularly helpful and I try hard to keep that little tidbit to myself.
I'm not sure that the west's hypocrisy is relevant. For one there are many United States politicians have the testicular fortitude to stand up and condemn China. Secondly I am unclear just how the US is even vaguely capable of stopping China from doing anything much less from being successful. Lastly the existence of one hypocritical government of earth isn't a get out of morality for free pass for the rest of the governments we have.
Interesting you object to film "The Corporation". I work for one of the companies mentioned in the film and have for nearly 20 years. I found their treatment of information I had personal knowledge of to be completely accurate.
I think you'll find links to the actual peer reviewed paper hard to come by. However, there are a variety of sites (readily discoverable thanks to google) which adequately describe the biological processes (which in my opinion are not preposterous but I am not a biologist, I am a chemist) and the risks possed. However from your use of "hippie's wet dream" I conclude youâ(TM)ve already made up your mind... so Iâ(TM)ll leave it you find the links for yourself and decide whether or not to believe them.
This issue was discussed in the documentary "The Corporation". A short synopsis is (as I recall): Monsanto resorted to deceptive testing and reporting practices to secure approval from the FDA. They engaged in heavy and deceptive advertising for the product. They made it difficult or impossible for 3rd party investigators to verify the accuracy of their testing. They denied the results of more recent studies linking both rBGH to cancers and the presence in the milk of cows treated with it. They bought complicity and editorial cooperation from Fox News Corp. They sue companies who advertise milk free of their chmeicals... and then my memory sort of runs out.
Anyway the film is worth watching and if I recall correctly they didn't mind people sharing it.
Maybe you should look into the wide scale looting the Germans perpetrated during the second world war. Not all the people that participated in the violence, destruction, and looting that went on in the war were rabid Jew hating sociopaths. Otherwise I agree with you statements⦠the post wasnâ(TM)t a troll.
Last week's Bill Moyer's Journal also touched on this⦠more than $15 billion in "wasteful, unnecessary, or redundant expenditures" that have flowed from Washington to America's agribusinesses.
Early last year when we got into this discussion it was stated that Carbon Fiber had doubled in price because Boing and Airbus were buying so much of it. Unfortunately carbon fiber isn't exactly like oil and there aren't hundreds of websites tracking the costs minute by minute.
Anyone have any idea what the current price for carbon fiber is?
As far as I can tell it is, not that I am the Apple developer that maintains it or anything. The plugin SDK is highly suggestive that it is a Cocoa app.
Just want to correct one thing: Aperture is not a replacement for photoshop it is a competitor of Adobe Lightroom. Apple doesn't have a direct replacement for photoshop.
Slashdot Mirror
From the Article:
"Brown and Nobles calculate that the approximate area needed to produce ethanol with corn to fuel all U.S. transportation needs is around 820,000 square miles, an area almost the size of the entire Midwest.
They hypothesize they could produce an equal amount of ethanol using an area half that size with the cyanobacteria based on current levels of productivity in the lab, but they caution that there is a lot of work ahead before cyanobacteria can provide such fuel in the field. Work with laboratory scale photobioreactors has shown the potential for a 17-fold increase in productivity. If this can be achieved in the field and on a large scale, only 3.5 percent of the area growing corn could be used for cyanobacterial biofuels."
By my math 3.5% of 820,000 is 28,700 sqaure miles. Which by most metrics is a lot of land, but not nearly what the karma whore was suggesting.
classmates.com? Aren't they a scam? I remeber briefly looking in the '90s and conluding they were a scam.
No it doesn't. For one that was a rumor, it's not like in 2006 Apple released a pressed release stating that instead of using P.A. Semi chips in their complete line they were going to use Intel.
Hey, don't get me wrong... nothing would please me more than during some Apple presentation that guy got on stage, introduced himself and declared that they (P.A. Semi & Apple) had just out ARM'd Intel. I'd be fucking amazed and delighted.
Back when DEC was selling Alphas we had a bunch heating the lab. Nice boxes, a lot faster for our app than Wintel but that was then and this is now.
It's been up on the Ars Mac forum all day.
I don't think that is quite right. If you go to their website and have a look at the documents for their reference design, it's all about high performance embedded applications. I'd expect to see these in comms applications... or purpose built high speed data handling. But not phones or PDAs or things like that.
I'm very curious where Apple is going with this. P.A. Semi so far has only put information about one design up on their website and it's been there at least since the rumor that Apple was going to buy them (shortly before they went to Intel). That chip, being somewhere between Atom & Core2 I suppose, doesn't seem to me to good fit to any of Apple's existing products.
The idea that hidden up their sleeves P.A. Semi has an ultra efficient SOC design for a next generation iPhone/iPod/Tablet is sort of interesting but I'd be really surprised if a dark horse came out nowhere and outdid the various upcoming Intel offerings or even the existing ARM SOC designs. Intel is very, very proud of their Low Voltage and Ultra Low Voltage parts but surely that added cost doesn't make it worth Apple's while to go out a buy a company.
The idea that P.A. Semi has a next generation chip suitable workstation or home computer applications for me is even more unlikely. I think it would have to some chip to really motivate Apple to go away from Intel for their Mac lines.
It's interesting that you use a man who supports intelligent design as an example of a high profile climate scientist who disagrees with the scientific consensus that climate change is indeed anthropogenic. I have found a strong correlation myself and that is something I find extremely interesting.
Your assertion that 'no one disagrees that climate change is happening' is incorrect, there are a variety of scientists who either deny global change flatly or maintain that it has ceased.
Your assertion that many scientists and meteorologists disagree is deceptive. Scientists who deny the existence of climate change or who deny an anthropogenic nature to climate change are a tiny fraction of the scientific community... and a smaller fraction still of climatologists.
Your assertion that Al Gore is in this simply for his personal gain is both factually incorrect and a straw man argument... which is, on it's face, pretty lame.
Your assertion that that gasses that we release have "no actual measurable affect on the planet" is not an undisputed fact and is contrary to the scientific consensus.
Finally I question your summarization that it's media manipulation which generates the uproar and posit that it is manipulation of the media that generates it. As I have previously stated saying that scientific community is split on this topic when it is a tiny fraction of scientists who disagree is disingenuous. For any issue at all it possible to find at least one or two men who will support your claims. If you have deep pockets and flexible mores it is possible to find still more.
To simply cast about until you find someone who has credentials who supports your preconceptions isn't particularly honest and is practically the defining characteristic of those who deny evolution and / or climate change... and come to think of it, the holocaust.
I think it is also important to recognize that professional deniers exploit and conflate the public's ignorance of the details of science and minor scientific disagreements in order to invent a substantive disagreement where there is little to none. Then reporters report "not all scientists agree" and the public walks away with the idea that there is some sort of real 50/50 split between serious scientists doing serious research as to the nature of whatever is being discussed. The fact of the matter is that no scientist seriously expects to achieve 100% consensus, nor is there is a 50/50 split between serious scientists doing serious research on either issue. There are virtually no evolutionary biologists saying in order to explain this or that an intelligent designer is required. And there are few climate scientists saying that it is extremely unlikely that climate change is not happening or that is completely decoupled from human activity.
So what's the best thing to do when faced with reporters uncritically reporting distorted facts from groups with hidden agendas or who present distorted data in an effort to present a "balanced" story? Translating real science into something easily consumed by average citizen is extraordinarily difficult to do and most scientists can't. So even if you were able to secure an interview with the same reporter it unlikely you could produce material to the same level that the professional propagandists produce... and the reporter damn sure isn't going to do it for you.
As a scientist I appreciate the difficulty and I get frustrated when I see reporters parrot bad science... it makes me glad sensor chemistry isn't exactly a hot bed of international debate.
This is something I noticed about a year ago and find fascinating. I canâ(TM)t decide if this is some sort of outright rejection of science or a more selective phenomena where they reject certain parts of science where it interferes with their world view.
I don't think booting from ZFS is all that interesting. I think expanding a RAID-Z pool is far more interesting: http://blogs.sun.com/ahl/entry/expand_o_matic_raid_z
I have spent the majority of my adult life in the study and practice of Buddhism. While I do recognize the differences in the various schools of Buddhism; none of them are different in substantive ways. In the context of this discussion I find your comment suspicious. It is suggestive that because Tibetans are do not practice some sort of imaginary fundamentalist Buddhism I should withdraw my support of Tibetans and His Holiness the Dali Lama or perhaps that we should not be outraged at the goings on in Tibet. I don't find either of these two concepts ethically or morally tenable.
So I have to ask: What of it? Why do you care? Why should I care?
Man I can't believe how much I screwed that post up. Perhaps I should try again.
Yes the West does act hypocritically but I don't think it is relevant.
1: there are *not* many Western politicians who criticize China strongly and effectively, though there are some that whine.
2: the economy of the West (the US in particular) is too indebted to China for the west to really have any power over decisions the Chinese government make
3: Just because the western powers are hypocritical doesn't mean it's OK for everyone to join in. Conversely just because China and North Korea exist does not make it OK for the US and the UK to become police states.
I would like add one more thing:
I did not vote for anyone who has been in the office of US president for the last 7.5 years. I don't support torture. I don't support Gitmo. I don't support the use of US State Department assets to secure unethical deals between US based multinational corporations & corrupt officials in developing nations. I don't support the sale of arms to any nation outside of NATO (or the sale or use of land mines & cluster bombs). I don't support the wide scale deployment of US troops in the middle east.
I am a Buddhist and I do care about the plight of the Tibetans. I may not get with full on Tibetan monastic thing, with all the colorful outfits, but I have met His Holiness the Dali Lama and I do own, and have read all his books. He's a remarkably straight forward man and pretty much everything I've heard him say was compassionate and worth following... whatever tradition you follow,if you follow one at all...
So when I read the various Chinese reactions on the internet about the uprising in Tibet, the sporadic violence, and the potential involvement of His Holiness the Dali Lama, I have to admit they take on this separation from reality. I have a hard time believing it is just some Chinese guy, at an internet expressing his opinion. But rather I think it must be people in the Chinese government's employ... surely the agitprop in China is not so effective. But then I remember the posts I have read from US, UK, and Australian nationals... supporting any action undertaken by their respective governments: Rejection of Habeas Corpus, Wholesale Warrant-less surveillance, invasion, occupation, murder, torture and I suppose it isn't unlikely at all that these posts are made by Chinese Nationals on their own volition and in the honest opinion... and that's pretty depressing.
I do speak out against these things and I do think I can do so in a minimally hypocritical way and I do think that the success of the Tibetan People does not require or demand the failure of the Chinese People. And I have gotten some pretty vitriolic responses. These have been fairly challenging because in my world view they are so obviously non factual and designed to be insulting and degrading. However as in a tiny, tiny way I am trying support His Holiness and the Tibetan people I think the response I most dearly wish to give "Fuck you, you Fucking Fucker" is particularly helpful and I try hard to keep that little tidbit to myself.
I'm not sure that the west's hypocrisy is relevant. For one there are many United States politicians have the testicular fortitude to stand up and condemn China. Secondly I am unclear just how the US is even vaguely capable of stopping China from doing anything much less from being successful. Lastly the existence of one hypocritical government of earth isn't a get out of morality for free pass for the rest of the governments we have.
That still does not make me feel any better.
Interesting you object to film "The Corporation". I work for one of the companies mentioned in the film and have for nearly 20 years. I found their treatment of information I had personal knowledge of to be completely accurate.
I think you'll find links to the actual peer reviewed paper hard to come by. However, there are a variety of sites (readily discoverable thanks to google) which adequately describe the biological processes (which in my opinion are not preposterous but I am not a biologist, I am a chemist) and the risks possed. However from your use of "hippie's wet dream" I conclude youâ(TM)ve already made up your mind... so Iâ(TM)ll leave it you find the links for yourself and decide whether or not to believe them.
This issue was discussed in the documentary "The Corporation". A short synopsis is (as I recall): Monsanto resorted to deceptive testing and reporting practices to secure approval from the FDA. They engaged in heavy and deceptive advertising for the product. They made it difficult or impossible for 3rd party investigators to verify the accuracy of their testing. They denied the results of more recent studies linking both rBGH to cancers and the presence in the milk of cows treated with it. They bought complicity and editorial cooperation from Fox News Corp. They sue companies who advertise milk free of their chmeicals... and then my memory sort of runs out.
Anyway the film is worth watching and if I recall correctly they didn't mind people sharing it.
Maybe you should look into the wide scale looting the Germans perpetrated during the second world war. Not all the people that participated in the violence, destruction, and looting that went on in the war were rabid Jew hating sociopaths. Otherwise I agree with you statements⦠the post wasnâ(TM)t a troll.
Last week's Bill Moyer's Journal also touched on this⦠more than $15 billion in "wasteful, unnecessary, or redundant expenditures" that have flowed from Washington to America's agribusinesses.
Early last year when we got into this discussion it was stated that Carbon Fiber had doubled in price because Boing and Airbus were buying so much of it. Unfortunately carbon fiber isn't exactly like oil and there aren't hundreds of websites tracking the costs minute by minute.
Anyone have any idea what the current price for carbon fiber is?
Where I live, the yellow light blinks 4 times for the change between green to red. Seems a much better system.
Why would you say Aperture is not based on Cocoa?
As far as I can tell it is, not that I am the Apple developer that maintains it or anything. The plugin SDK is highly suggestive that it is a Cocoa app.
If you'll look I think you'll find that the downloads for his work number in the many 10's of thousands.
So I doubt it's just a few angry kids.
Just want to correct one thing: Aperture is not a replacement for photoshop it is a competitor of Adobe Lightroom. Apple doesn't have a direct replacement for photoshop.